I found a cite, I’m pretty positive it’s not biased, but then again I don’t know that much about the organization.
http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html
Also the main page is called “Is Homosexulaity genetic?” can be found at :
http://www.narth.com/menus/born.html
hope it helps.
Right. First off, we have no idea how many gay people aren’t acting upon their ‘gayness’, marry have children and are therefor adding to the genepool. You will never know and as several posters added, it could be a combination of recessive genes that when combined causes “gayness”. We all could be carriers…
Next is your assumption that “Gayness” must be “passed down” from parent to children. Down’s syndrom is a genetic “mistake”. However, I believe it is not one that is “passed down” the genetic chain, it is a ramdom occurance. One that can happen to anyone and is a type of genetic ‘error’ which i believe homesexualty to be, a glich. In other words, Homosexualty is a natural occuring mutation. It is no more a learned behaviour than having one blue eye and one brown eye…it just is.
Further, if memory serves me, there’s some studies, that the amount of gays in the population remains relatively constant. I think if true, this adds fuel, to a natural occuring event.
Hell, maybe this is nature’s way of population control… that doesn’t have a regulated reproduction cycle, “Gayness”, keeps us a least a little under control.
There are also, IIRC, diseases/syndromes what-have-yous that are passed on genetically that result in childhood deaths. These people who die in childhood obviously don’t have children, yet the condition is still existant.
I usually do not get involved in these debates, but I just wanted to shed some information on this topic.
Children are born with hormones, and it is at age 10 or 11 that the body begins to produce more testosterone and estrogen. It is true that at this point of development these hormones kick in at an alarming rate. This is the cause of puberty and the increase in sexual desire at this point in there life. This does not say that it was not there before. Freud states that between age 3 and 6 is the phallic stage of development where children are obessed with their genitalia, and they begin to notice differences between boys and girls. There is the possibility that crushes at this time could be the same for homosexuals as for heterosexuals, and that at age 10 or 11 these feelings get more defined and pronounced.
I just do not feel that normal development is an argument for learned or genetic reasoning for homosexuality. I remember having crushes in elementary school that became more pronounced when I was older, I just happened to have crushes on members of the opposite sex.
I do not have internet sites on this information currently, but I could probably find some. I was referencing a human development book I have at home.
NARTH is a group that formed after the APA removed homosexuality from their list of mental disorders. They believe that the APA was wrong to do so, that homosexuality is a mental disorder, and that homosexuality can be cured.
This doesn’t mean that the information on their site is all incorrect (and I haven’t looked at the cite you provided), but they do have a bias, and that needs to be taken into account.
Also, a lot of NARTH’s research derives from the work of a man called Paul Cameron (IIRC). He was kicked out of the APA for questionable research methods and violating their codes for conduct. Not exactly someone I’d call a fabulous cite.
I don’t know that I accept the position statements of “psychiatric experts” as necessarily unbiased or academically well-founded. Psychiatrists (including the psychiatric establishment and leading practitioners) have believed any number of wacky things up to and through pretty recent times – I wouldn’t particularly want to shoulder the burden of defending electroshock or lobotomies or Freudian psychoanalysis/dream interpretation, or any of the other positions held through the years by leaders of psychiatric “science.”
It’s also I think notably unfair to suggest that the APA position itself was formulated in a vaccum and thus devoid of potential bias (or that the APA hasn’t, previously, held “scientific” views directly counter to its present position).
See, e.g.,
http://www.glaa.org/archive/2001/mw30yearsofglaa0412.shtml
for an account of some of the raucous “scientific” tactics that took place (engineered by activists for homosexual rights such as Frank Kameny) within the APA in the years leading up to its policy change.
This isn’t really to join in on the OP, just to caution against assuming that one piece of “evidence” (especially “evidence” from a historically witch-doctory plagued “profession” such as psychiatry) establishes (or refutes) a “gay gene.” I similarly squint my eye and wonder about how the putative binary “gay sex gene” on/off switch seems to be found in such high association with what I suppose we’ll have to assume are the separate but co-associated hairdressing gene and artist gene.
Any twin-studies on homosexuality? You know, the ones where for whatever reasons the twins are separarted at an early age and raised separately.
There have been some studies that suggest that if one of a pair of identical male twins is gay, there’s about a 50% chance the other one will be gay.
It’s not conclusive, though.
Well if you can’t accept the APA as an authority, then this entire discussion is opinion, and the best we can do is discuss personal anecdotal evidence.
In that vein, I had a crush on Freddy White when I was 6, and always knew I was “different” without having a name to put on it. I came out to myself at 18. Life’s been grand since.
My question for Adman - does it matter? If so, why?
Esprix
Just chiming in with my own anecdotal evidence. I have always been attracted to men ever since I noticed that I got aroused watching pro wrestling when I was very young. My first experience was some mutual exploration with another boy when I was 9.
Of copurse, the corollary to the OP’s question is, when did he make his choice? Did he calmly weigh the pros and cons of heterosexuality and homosexuality before picking a team?
While other people have mentioned some possible genetic mechanisms, I don’t think anyone here has mentioned the population mechanisms that could be at work. E.O. Wilson’s hypothesis was that homosexuals exist because of the phenomenon of kin selection. Essentially, even if homosexuals are less likely to reproduce, having a homosexual in your family makes everyone’s kids more likely to succeed: essentially because it gives the family/tribe an extra member who 1) doesn’t have to waste energy on the much more crowded field of competition for hetero mates, leaving this energy for use in other productive endeavors 2) oftentimes plays the “shaman” role in communities, protecting the family and encouraging learning.
This also explains why homosexuals for some reason tend to be more successful and more altruistic (though that could easily be explained just as easily as a reaction to life-long adversity).
It’s just a theory, howeve, and really only one that makes sense in the context of earlier, more closely knit families/tribe.
However, as people point out, many many gay people DO reproduce, either as part of a hetero couple ( I have two friends whose fathers finally came out long after they had sired children) or, increasingly more commonly, as part of a surrogacy. And if the predisposition to homosexuality is genetic, then it could very well thirve as part of succesful familes: every so often the family produces a gay individual, who contributes to the success of the family overall, thus keeping the recessive trait alive.
On a side note: Twin studies are so great that I’m almost in favor of mandatory separation and adoption for all twins, sort of like what Kim Il Jung (who’s desperately afraid of triplets because of some phrophecy about them being able to defeat him and his pet-Godzilla if they are able come together) does: only instead of doing it for insane dictator reasons, we’d do it for SCIENCE. (No, I’m not really for that: but hey, at least it would have saved us all from that Mary-Kate Ashley thing)
I have a sick feeling that they would have managed to torture us all separately as well as they do together.
As for the OP, why would anyone choose to be gay? Life is tough enough without deliberately adding obstacles, and being homosexual ain’t easy.
Julie
Hey, adman! Since you’re the [self-appointed] authority on the subject, care to tell us:
[list=1][li]Your qualifications,[/li][li]Studies you’ve conducted,[/li][li]Peer review comments of said studies,[/li]and
[li]Qualifications of said peers.[/li][/list=1]
Clarification: “learned behavior” != “conscious choice”
Different childhood environments produce different behaviors. This is how different cultures work. You never make a “choice” as such, but you grow up with different things feeling “right” to you. A conscious decision may not even be involved in the learning process.
That said, put me firmly in the "learned behavior’’ camp. IMO genetics determines what you look like, helps determine how fast you learn, and nudges you toward having sex with whatever you want. That’s about it. Society takes care of the rest.
Why, oh why, would someone choose a lifestyle that incorporates daily beatings and general shunning from society? It’s beyond ridiculous to think that homosexuality is chosen.
So, a society that produces mostly heterosexuals produces homosexuals by what mechanism? Homosexuals are produced by the same households as heterosexuals. How is that possible? Homosexuals cannot be “re-educated” to become heterosexual. Why not?
Julie
Without militating for any absolute no/yes answer on the OP proposition, I have two questions on Julie’s logical position:
Does the fact that has societally negative and difficult outcomes (and that these outcomes or predictable) rule out the possibility that any significant number of persons could ever be reasonably supposed to engage in for reasons of their own volition? I can think of a number of behaviors that are pretty well guaranteed (or at least statistically likely) to give someone a tough row to hoe in life (because of health risks/social stigma/economic disadvantage/personal frustrations): beginning to use heroin; becoming a teenage mom; dropping out of high school; disowning your family; becoming involved in organized crime or drug dealing. Without denying for now that there might be possibly-genetic (i.e., supposed ‘addictive personalities’), possibly-societal contributors to a person’s ending up indulgin in each of these “negative consequence” behaviors, most of us would see at least an element of personal volition/choice in the choice to first use heroin, or to continue selling drugs despite the well-known negative effects of such behaviors. Again, I’m not saying this proves homosexuality is purely or mostly volitional; just that the (possibly severe) difficulties homosexuals may face don’t prove that they couldn’t possibly have had any volitional choice along the path that led to such difficulties.
On a more-speculative note, if the male sex drive is significantly stronger than the female (and there seems to be some biological basis for this, though IANA evolutionary biologist, endocrinologist, etc.), then one at least theoretically-possible “advantage” to (male) homosexuality that would counterbalance the “it ain’t easy” part is that it is “easy” – or easier – for a man to have ready access to sex as frequently as he desires by “opting” (arguendo; again, I’m not saying this it’s really optional, or not) to seek other men. I suggest this mainly after listening to Andrew Sullivan give what might have been a rousing defense of homosexual ‘marriage’ rights – vitiated only by his discussing, in the same context of how ‘it’s great to be gay,’ his wild sex-filled weekends with multiple anonymous partners. One can also imagine that a rutting, but callow, 13 y.o. male might have a lot easier time finding a willing same-sex counterpart of his own age (or older) than he would convincing the 17 y.o. homecoming queen to get it on. Again, I’m not saying it happens, but most people seem to tacitly agree that (the many) homosexual men interested in lots of sex, period, have more practical options to fulfill that wish than do (the equally many) heterosexual men with similar urges, so it’s worth mentioning in the context of arguments that “no one would ever choose a ‘lifestyle’ that has nothing but negative reinforcements/incorporates daily beatings and general shunning from society.”
Anyone who says that homesexuality is learned behaviour is simply not thinking logically. Learned behaviour follows a pattern, a repeatable pattern. Where’s the pattern in homosexuality? What steps can i take to create a homosexual? Show Tunes? Feather Boas? What’s the precise lessons, i can teach to create a homosexual? Because if it’s a learnt behaviour, someone must be able to teach it.
Speech is a learned behaviour and follows a pedictable and controllable pattern. Deny children examples of speech and they do not learn to speak. All children learn to speak the same way, by example. They copy those who do speak…they are taught.
How then can a person in a hetrosexual society, let alone a hetero household or family learn to be homosexual it is illogical. Who are their teachers? How does one learn to be a homosexual?